Day 396, Desolation.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Visibility.
2. Work.
3. The resident animals.
4. The Bad Guys’ Explanation.

1. Visibility.

I conducted a visibility across from the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese at about 1 pm or so on June 22, 2010.

There is definitely not the foot traffic at this hour as during the evening rush, but there was more than yesterday.

People were nice, and the drivers show aggressiveness I have seen in the past.

2. Work.

In contrast to yesterday, I actually saw workers.

The workers have spread themselves out. Destruction of 3/4 of the Nesting Area was as heartless as the behavior which has been tradition from Governor Patrick’s people and from the City of Cambridge. Spreading out their goods did not hide the fact that about have the work area destruction was unnecessary.

3. The resident animals.

The really rotten nature of Governor Patrick’s people and Cambridge comes when you see the condition which has been forced on resident animals.

Their food has been poisoned at Magazine Beach and walled off with introduced vegetation which has no business on the Charles River, but the really rotten behavior is in the tiny ghetto who which the Charles River White Geese have been confined.

All ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse has been destroyed.

What was once lush greenery is now dirt. The green environment was destroyed in stages from about 2003 to the destruction as part of the BU Bridge repairs. There is no coincidence whatsoever that the construction zone destroyed almost all of what was not destroyed in the period 2003 to 2009.

I have posted some good photos in earlier reports and a larger collection of photos appears on the home page of the Charles River White Geese at Facebook.

4. The Bad Guys’ Explanation.

Governor Patrick’s people started their lies before he came into office, nonstop lies of intention to do no harm.

Cambridge’s machine simply tosses out the usual holier than thous that they are protecting the environment. Natuarlly,the somehow neglect to mention their environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse during their pieties.

Really rotten people.

Day 395, No signs of work.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Visibility.
2. Observations.

1. Visibility.

On June 21, 2010, I leafleted a little after noon in sight of the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

Traffic, once again, was quite bad because four lanes have been reduced to two.

There were even less people on the sidewalk than was the situation the day before, on Sunday. Nevertheless, the few people I saw were quite responsive.

2. Observations.

I saw no signs of life with regard to the construction.

There were people using the soccer field.

Day 394 at the Destroyed Nesting Area — The work looks that much more bizarre

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Visibility.
2. Magazine Beach.
3. Malvina Monteiro.

1. Visibility.

On Sunday, June 20, 2010, I conducted a visibility on the west side of the BU Bridge across from the Destroyed Nesting Area.

It was a little bit past noon on Sunday, and the temperature was in the 80s.

Definitely not a busy time for pedestrians, although, because of the closing of bridge lanes, the car traffic was heavy.

We changed generations of fliers to a slightly different new printing. The new flier tells people about the new Facebook page created by Nick Cheung, a friend of the Charles River White Geese in Maine. As I started passing out the first few of the new fliers, I mentioned friending the Charles River White Geese on Facebook. The comment was well received.

2. Magazine Beach.

The bizarre introduced vegetation gets thicker at the same time as the DCR destroys native protective vegetation everywhere else on the Charles River twice a year.

The poison drainage system looks really very massive, an awful lot of recreation area destroyed simply because Cambridge and the state are so irresponsible as to dump poisons on the banks of the Charles River and then devise a way to drain the poisons off.

The responsible techniques would have been to have meaningful respect for the environment.

There were seven acres of healthy grass which survived without poisons for the better part of a century. That grass would survive one again. All that is necessary is toss on seeds for the responsible grass and stop feeding the poisons to keep the sickly introduced stuff alive.

To make it worse, the sickly introduced stuff seems to be wearing down under whatever little use the playing fields has seen.

3. Malvina Monteiro.

To date the appeal does not seem to have been filed yet. At least the public index does not reflect a case filed this year under her name.

When the case was in Superior Court, membership in the legal profession was needed to get access to the docket. On the appellate level, anybody can get access. The search page is: http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/search.php. Just put in Ms. Monteiro’s name and 2010. There are a number of Monteiro cases in the index, but not Malvina, not yet.

Monteiro Appeal Filed by Cambridge

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Today, June 14, 2010, Cambridge filed notice of appeal in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. We have given quite a few reports on this case. The most important case paper can be accessed from the link in the upper right corner which reads: “Monteiro Judge on Cambridge: Reprehensible.”

The following is the notice of appeal from the on line docket. The on line docket uses software which destroyed paragraphing. ALL the below paragraphing is my best guess. To the extent extraneous numbers appear in my quote, please let me know about them. They would be line numbers that I missed in the edit.

Please also note that the software loses a lot of punctuation / emphasis. I have made no attempt to correct these errors.

It is highly likely that the below quote is just the title. There may have been other matters filed as part of the document.


*******

Defendant City of Cambridge's (second renewed) notice of appeal from:

(1) Corrected Amended Final Judgment on Jury Verdict entered on June 4, 2010;

(2) Amended Order of Judgment entered on May 20, 2010;

(3) Memorandum and Order on defendant's motion for reconsideration entered on May 20, 2010;

(4) Memorandum and Order on plaintiff's Petition for award of fees and costs entered on May 20, 2010;

(5) Memorandum and Order on plaintiff's motion to clarify, alter and 8 amend the court's judgment on jury verdicts entered on May 20, 2010, including but not limited to reversal to the previous award of costs 10 to defendant relating to the first trial;

(6) Judgment on jury verdicts entered on June 2, 2009;

(7) Order entered on May 8, 2009 denying the defendant's post-trial motions, including without limitation:

(a) defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict;

(b) Defendant's motion for a new trial, or, in the alternative, for a remittitur, and

(c) motoin to supplement the record on appeal.

(8) Order from the Bench at the Charge Conference in May, 2008, rejecting defendant's proposed retaliation charge under McCormack v. Boston Edison, and other objections as preserved;

(9) Order denying defendant City of Cambridge's Motion for reconsideration of decision and order on post-trial motions;

(10) Order from the bench denying defendant City of Cambridge's motion for directed verdict dated May 20, 2008;

(11) order from the bench of May 13, 2008 denying defendant's motion for mistrial in connection with the admission of so-called "comparator" evidence;

(12) Implicit orders refusing to consider the defendant's submission of Statement of Authority regarding Everett v. The 357 Corp., filed on April 22, 2009, while giving full consideration to plaintiff's co-called statement of supplemental Authority regarding Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed on December 28, 2009;

(13) Order denying defendant's motion for directed verdict dated February 22, 2005 (first trial);

(14) Order denying defendant's motion for directed verdict and/or reconsideration of the denial of motion for directed verdict dated June 2, 2005, including but not limited to the denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a rule 64 Report (first trial);

(15) order denying motion of defendant City of Cambridge for entry of partial judgment dated August 4, 2005 (first trial); and

(16) January 2005 order from the bench allowing plaintiff Monteiro's motion to amend complaint filed on December 14, 2004 (first trial).

Cambridge School Committee Member Marc McGovern: "Compassion" v. Heartlessness

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introduction.
2. Marilyn’s Letter to the Editor.
3. The Exchange on Line.
A. Bob #1. Two weeks ago.
B. McGovern #2. Two weeks ago.
C. Bob #2. One week ago.
D. McGovern #3. One week ago.

1. Introduction.

In the June 3, 2010, edition of the Cambridge Chronicle, there was a letter to the editor from Cambridge School Committee Member Marc McGovern.

McGovern communicated a high level of sweetness in calling for compassion in the budget process. Compassion came through a lot more clearly than budget.

In the past, McGovern has printed two letters in the Cambridge Chronicle endorsing the outrage which has since been implemented at Magazine Beach.

McGovern has been disowning any responsibility for anything negative at Magazine Beach ever since.

McGovern’s latest letter was also printed on line. I responded on line. McGovern responded to me. I responded back. McGovern responded back to me.

Marilyn Wellons submitted a letter to the editor aimed at publication in the hard copy edition.

Marilyn’s letter follows. Then follows the on line exchange without the original McGovern letter. My two pieces are my two pieces and I think there would be no problem whatsoever passing them on. McGovern’s responses to me are extremely short and highly relevant to the purposes of this blog. They seem appropriate. The original McGovern letter is too long to print here without very clearly violating the doctrine of fair use, and really, except for the tone, is not relevant to this blog.

2. Marilyn’s Letter to the Editor.

David Harris, Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

To the Editor:

Cambridge School Committeeman McGovern’s letter about the School Department budget and staff firings (“We must never lose our compassion” May 31, 2010) and the subsequent online exchange about his support for the city’s squandering of $1.5M at Magazine Beach sent me to my notes of a telephone call Mr. McGovern made to me last summer, on August 5, 2009.

Campaigning for re-election and apparently stung by my July 23 letter to the Chronicle about the chemically maintained Little League and youth soccer fields that $1.5M was buying, he quickly acknowledged the project was a mistake. I gathered voters, especially parents in the Cambridgeport Little League that he headed, were not happy at the prospect of their children’s exposure to endocrine-disrupting substances.

We had a free and frank exchange of views. He said then, as he does now online, that he had no responsibility for the planning of the project. I challenged that, citing his consistent public support for it individually, as both a Little League official and School Committee candidate, and together with State Rep. Marty Walz. When he claimed he had no knowledge of plans for chemical maintenance, I reminded him with some heat of our conversation at the Dana Park party in June, 2007, when I told him about it and handed him a flyer with that information in writing. On the phone, he pointed to the DCR as responsible for the fields’ maintenance, and when I told him Cambridge would maintain the fields he said that was Paul Ryder’s responsibility, not his.

Money is fungible. Our elected officials have thought $1.5M a reasonable sum to pay to destroy sustainable, naturally maintained playing fields at Magazine Beach, open to all, that were also simultaneously a place for contact with the natural world. What else could that $1.5M (or, say, another $6.9M) have bought, or buy now, to make Mr. McGovern’s call for compassion unnecessary?

Yours sincerely,

Marilyn Wellons

[Ed: Marilyn’s mention of $6.9 M refers to the latest counting of the award in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge, reported elsewhere in this blog. This is the Chronicle’s quote of the plaintiff’s attorney. In this blog, please note in particular the link referring to a judge calling Cambridge “reprehensible.”]

3. The Exchange on Line.

I start with McGovern #2 counting the originally published letter which I am not reproducing (see above) as #1.

The dates are those posted on line.

A. Bob #1. Two weeks ago.

A very major expenditure that Mr. McGovern has belligerently supported is the bizarre project at Magazine Beach featuring very prominent and very heartless animal abuse. Heartless animal abuse which is a direct result of bizarre expenditure of funds is exactly the opposite of 'compassion.'

I would suggest that Mr. McGovern show compassion. He repeatedly claims that he only has responsibility for the good stuff in this outrageous waste of money. There is no good stuff.

Mr. McGovern could save money at Magazine Beach by stopping the dumping of poisons there. The poisons are there to keep alive introduced grass which cannot survive without lots of money being spent on poisons to keep it alive. Mr. McGovern, at the same time, is poisoning animals feeding off this and poisoning kids rolling in it.

Mr. McGovern can responsibly save money by tossing on the seeds of the grass which survived at Magazine Beach for the better part of a century and did not need poisons to survive. You toss on enough seeds and you no longer have to spend money on poisons to keep alive sickly grass.

At the same time, the beautiful 30 years resident and thus native Charles River White Geese are kept from their primary source of food at Magazine Beach by a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which has not business on the Charles River.

Mr. McGovern's agents at the DCR, twice a year, run around the Charles River destroying native vegetation vegetation, but they do not destroy the bizarre introduced stuff that Mr. McGovern is responsible for.

Boston's Conservation Commission has punished the DCR for its destructiveness toward the native vegetation. The BCC is concerned about resident and visiting water fowl.

I would suggest that Mr. McGovern show compassion and common sense. Have the DCR chop down his introduced vegetation to end its harm to the native water fowl.

The DCR representative has bragged that this stuff keeps away the native water fowl.

My understanding is that Mr. McGovern has a total lack of compassion when it comes to his bizarre project at Magazine Beach.

Shame. 'We must never lose our compassion' is what he says in the next to the last sentence.

Interesting.

B. McGovern #2. Two weeks ago.

I am the president of central division little league. The project you are referring to is being run by DCR. I can't even get them to put a port-a-potty at the field let alone stop their project. You make slanderous and outrageous statements. 'Mr. McGovern is at this time is poisoning animals...' This is untrue and I am demanding that you stop making false allegations. 'Have the DCR chop down HIS introduced vegetation...' I did not introduce anything in this project. I never attended a meeting. I was never asked my opinion and had nothing to do with the planning of this field. I did write two letters thanking the DCR for redoing the little league field. That is all. I will not comment any further on your ridiculous statements.

C. Bob #2. One week ago.

Golly gee. Those lovely letters in the Chronicle must have been fakes, and even after never attending a meeting.

I live and oppose the really rotten situation you have consistently supported.

Have compassion. Undo the outrage you have public[ly] supported and then claim[ed] shock that anybody would blame you.

Give Cambridge open space. Start with the open space you have destroyed at Magazine Beach.

Massive amounts of open space have been destroyed for an expensive drainage system to drain poisons which were not necessary until you destroyed the healthy grass which was there for the better part of a century and replaced it with sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive.

Stop the poisons (and stop poisoning kids) by replacing your sickly grass with the native stuff you destroyed. Then you can fill in the poison drainage and give up back the playing fields you destroyed.

Chop down the bizarre wall of vegetation which has no business starving animals, and no business on the Charles River.

Chop down all those bizarre fences.

Oh, and, as usual, the two letters you put in the Chronicle unconditionally supporting this outrage are a fiction and my imagination.

How dare anybody expect you to be responsible a project which you have unconditionally supported.

A project which HAS NO VALUE. Destruction which HAS NO VALUE.

NO, NO, NO.

Small open space is not an improvement. [Ed: Typo, “small” should have been “smaller”.]

Poisoned playing fields are not an improvement.
Show compassion on the kids you have done this to.

Show compassion on the animals you have done this to.

Show compassion on the environement.

And stop the lies that you do no support an outrage to which you gave unconditioned PUBLIC support in the pages of this newspaper.

OUTRAGEOUS.

D. McGovern #3. One week ago.

I said I wrote two letters.

Monteiro judge’s reconsideration memorandum.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

Thank you to the Cambridge Chronicle for posting the key judge’s decision this year on line at http://www.scribd.com/doc/31878327/monteiro, and thank you to Marilyn Wellons for recognizing the link in the Chronicle report, which I missed.

I have traded the key 2009 decision for this decision and attempted to download this decision to my hard drive.

Scribd tells me it downloaded, but my computer tells me it is not there.

This thing is not directly copiable and I now seem to be in some sort of loop.

In any case, the decision is at the above link. Total postings are apparently 16 pages including other papers which I have already posted.

In order to resolve the oddities, I have retyped the memorandum.

My retyping is perfect except for converting double spacing to single. Some specific formatting has been changed by the blog. An extended quote was double indented in the original and my copy. That has been lost. This formatting is replaced by asterisks preceding and following.

The Court's Memorandum on Reconsideration of the Penal Damages award follows:

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO. MICV2001-02737


MALVINA MONTEIRO,
Plaintiff

vs.

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE,
Defendant


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Defendant City of Cambridge (“Defendant” or “the City”) has moved for reconsideration of the issue of punitive damages on the basis that the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 455 Mass. 91 (2009) requires that the award be vacated. The City contends that, as a matter of law, “the standard for the award of punitive damages as enunciated in the Haddad decision was not met in this case.” This Court disagrees.

In Haddad, although there was no claim of error in the instructions given on punitive damages, and the SJC found none, the Court nonetheless “[took the] opportunity . . . to set forth a new standard describing the circumstances in which punitive damages may be awarded.” Id. at 110.

**********

To sustain an award of punitive damages under G.L., c. 151B, §4, a finding of intentional discrimination alone is not sufficient. An award of punitive damages requires a heightened finding beyond mere liability and also beyond a knowing violation of the statute. Punitive damages may be awarded only where the defendant’s conduct is outrageous or egregious. Punitive damages are warranted where the conduct is so offensive that it justifies punishment and not merely compensation. In making an award of punitive damages, the fact finder should determine that the awarded is needed to deter such behavior toward the class of which plaintiff is a member, or that the demendant’s behavior is so egregious that it warrants public condemnation and punishment. Id. At 110-111 (citations omitted; emphasis added).

**********

Although the present case pre-dated Haddad, the jury instructions on punitive damages (which were essentially those requested by the City) emphasized the need for the jury to make findings that the conduct was “outrageous” and “extreme” in nature. Therefore, assuming Haddad applies to this case, the jury instructions were consistent with the standard set forth by theSJC. This Court, however, is of the opinion that the SJC’s discussion in Haddad is not applicable here.

The Court in Haddad made it clear that its new enunciated punitive damages standard was to be applied prospectively, that is, it is “to be applied in (1) all claims for punitive damages under G.L., c. 151B commenced after the date of the rescript in this opinion, and (2) all pending claims that have not gone to judgment in the Trial Court by such date.” Id.

The decision does not appy there to a case such as the present case, where the case has been tried, the jury has been instructed and has rendered its verdict, and post-trial motions have been heard and decided. Here, verdicts were returned on May 23, 2008; this Court entered its decision on post-trial motions, which included uphonding the award of punitive damages, on April 24, 2009; a Motion for Entry of Final Judgment was allowed on May 18, 2009; and Final Judgment entered on June 2, 2009. The only matter “pending” at the time of the SJC decision was a Rule 59 motion concerning the form of the judgment. The City’s motion for reconsideration thus has no legal support.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the City’s Motion for Reconsideration of its post trial motions on punitive damages is DENIED.

Bonnie H. MacLeod-Mancuso
Judge of the Superior Court

Date: May 20, 2010

Monteiro: $6.9 million for destroying a woman’s life, not for discrimination.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have now seen two key people describe the judge and jury’s award to Malvina Monteiro as a discrimination award.

If it were a discrimination award, it would not even come close to that number.

The key number, $3.5 million, is penal damages for destroying Malvina Monteiro’s life in retaliation for her filing the claim.

“Reprehensible” is the judge’s word which the judge used as part of her finding. The judge clearly demonstrated the city manager’s destruction of Malvina Monteiro’s life in retaliation for Malvina Monteiro filing the civil rights claim.

Cambridge has a city council which, as usual, does not want to know what it is doing. The city council’s lack of interest in what it is doing, tars the city council with the condemnation by judge and jury.

If the city council were decent human beings, the city council would be firing the city manager without pension and without golden parachute, with permission of the judge.

Treating the Cambridge city manager the way he deserves would establish precedent, but it difficult to think of a fact situation which would more justify this precedent.

So, as you hear people saying this nonsense that the $6.9 million is a discrimination payment, listen to the judge.

Read her summary of the key evidence, as stated in her key opinion (http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html).

Read her summary of the award in her judgment, in my immediately preceding post.

The judge, as she was summarizing the award, spoke of: “Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the [discrimination] claims in May of 2008". These Cambridge activists are making statements of award with regard to a complaint the Plaintiff has dismissed.

Cambridge has a reprehensible city manager and a reprehensible city council. All that is needed to see just how reprehensible the city council is is the fact that the city council considers the city manager’s behavior normal.

Cambridge has a situation in which a lot of people constantly just cannot understand what is going on. So people describe a reality which does not exist. And this fake reality gives decent human beings the impression that a really bad city government is something other than it is.

The Cambridge Chronicle’s report may be read at http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x884192639/Cambridge-workplace-retaliation-lawsuit-costing-taxpayers-close-to-7M.

The judge rules: Malvina Monteiro to be paid over $6 million.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Introduction.
2. The rulings on line.
A. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, May 21, 2010.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify, Alter and Amend the Court’s Judgment, May 21, 2010.
C. Plaintiff’s Petition for Award of Fees and Costs, May 21, 2010.
D. Amended Order of Judgment, May 21, 2010.
E. Amended Final Judgment, May 25, 2010.


1. Introduction.

The latest orders in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge came down on May 21, 2010 and May 24, 2010.

Thank you to Carolyn Shipley on the Cambridgeport list for pointing this out to me.

I have gone to the Court’s docket and obtained what is reported on the docket. They follow below, with paragraphing added and line numbering deleted. If you see any inexplicable numbers, they are probably line numbers I missed. I would appreciate being informed of such errors.

This time, the reasoning of the Court has not been posted on line.

Carolyn quoted the Cambridge Chronicle's report that the award is $6.9 million. This is the Chronicle’s quote of Monteiro’s attorney as stated in the on line version of the report.

My comment provided to the Cambridgeport list read as follows:

***********

Thank you to Carolyn for reporting this.

I have not picked up the Chronicle yet and I cannot find this report on line in the Chronicle.

In contrast to the main decision, the Court's on line record, the on line docket does not include the rationalization for the decisions. I will post what little I have on the Charles River White Geese Blog.

I do not see a heck of a lot complicated about this matter.

The judge's key decision last year was excellent. The City Council should have then and still can fire the City Manager for cause, preferably with permission of the judge.

The judge has made an excellent case for firing the City Manager, with judicial permission, without pension and without golden parachute. Rather than wasting money on a silly appeal for the benefit of the City Manager, the City Council should switch sides to the side they claim to be on.

An excellent precedent can be made out of this case if the Cambridge City Council is pro civil rights.

This is yet another example of decent people deeply offended by the behavior of the City of Cambridge, and the Cambridge City Council not wanting to know what is going on.

This woman has suffered enough.

$6.9 million enough.

*********

2. The rulings on line.

A. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, May 21, 2010.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERTION:

For the foregoing reasons, the City's Motion for Reconsideration of its post trial motions on punitive damages is denied.

(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice).

Copies mailed May 21, 2010

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify, Alter and Amend the Court’s Judgment, May 21, 2010.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CLARIFY, ALTER AND AMEND THE COURT'S JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICTS:

For the foregoing reasons, it is Ordered that an Amended Judgment shall issue reflecting prejudgment interest from January 5, 2005 through June 12, 5 2008 and post judgment interest on the award of damages and attorney's fees running from June 12, 2008

(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice).

Copies mailed May 21, 2010

C. Plaintiff’s Petition for Award of Fees and Costs, May 21, 2010.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS:

For the foregoing reasons, it is Ordered that the plaintiff recover $545,842.00 in attorney's fees and $23,697.00 in costs.

(Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice).

Copies mailed May 21, 2010

D. Amended Order of Judgment, May 21, 2010.

Amended Order of Judgment:

It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

With respect to Count Ten (Retaliation) of the Amended Complaint, that judgment enter in favor of the Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro and that such judgment is entered nunc pro tunc as of June 12, 2008.

With respect to Counts Eight and Nine of the Amended Complaint (Race and National Origin Discrimination), that, consistent with the jury's answer of a special verdict question at the trial in this matter in 2005, and with Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the claims in May of 2008, Counts Eight and Nine are dismissed with prejudice and the parties will bear their own costs as to the trial of such claims in 2005.

With regard to Count Ten (Retaliation) and consistent with the jury's verdict, that the Plaintiff Monteiro take:

(a) compensatory damages in the amount of $1,062,400, plus pre-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from January 5, 2005 until June 12, 2008, and post-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the compensatory damages as well as the accumulated pre-judgment interest, running from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied;

(b) punitive damages in the amount of $3,500,000, with post-judgment simple interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied; and,

(c) reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $545,842. and costs in the amount of $23,697.

It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

With respect to Count Ten (Retaliation) of the Amended Complaint, that judgment enter in favor of the Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro and that such judgment is entered nunc pro tunc as of June 12, 2008.

With respect to Counts Eight and Nine of the Amended Complaint (Race and National Origin Discrimination), that, consistent with the jury's answer of a special verdict question at the trial in this matter in 2005, and with Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the claims in May of 2008, Counts Eight and Nine are dismissed with prejudice and the parties will bear their own costs as to the trial of such claims in 2005.

With regard to Count Ten (Retaliation) and consistent with the jury's verdict, that the Plaintiff Monteiro take:

(a) compensatory damages in the amount of $1,062,400, plus pre-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from January 5, 2005 until June 12, 2008, and post-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the compensatory damages as well as the accumulated pre-judgment interest, running from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied;

(b) punitive damages in the amount of $3,500,000, with post-judgment simple interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from June 12, 2008 until judgment is satisfied; and,

(c) reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $545,842. and costs in the amount of $23,697.

(Bonnie H. MacLeod-Mancuso, J)

copes mailed May 21, 2010

E. Amended Final Judgment, May 25, 2010.

AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT:

This action came on for trial before the Court and a jury, Bonnie H. MacLeod, Justice, presiding, the issues having been duly tried and the jury having rendered its verdict, It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

With respect to Count Ten (Retaliation) of the Amended Complaint, that judgment enter in favor of the Plaintiff Malvina Monteiro and that such judgment is entered nunc pro tunc as of June 12, 2008.

With respect to Counts Eight and Nine of the Amended Complaint (Race and National Origin Discrimination), that, consistent with the jury's answer of a special verdict question at the trial in this matter in 2005, and with Ms. Monteiro's voluntary dismissal of the claims in May of 2008, Counts Eight and Nine are dismissed with prejudice and the parties will bear their own costs as to the trial of such claims in 2005.

With regard to Count Ten (Retaliation) and consistent with the jury's verdict, that the Plaintiff Monteiro take:

(a) compensatory damages in the amount of $1,062,400, plus pre-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum in the sum of $438,003.70 from January 5, 2005 until June 12, 2008,and post-judgment statutory interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the compensatory damages as well as the accumulated pre-judgment interest($1,500,403.70), in the sum of $350,727.57 from June 12, 2008 until May 24, 2010;

The court further awards (b) punitive damages in the amount of $3,500,000, with post-judgment simple interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum in the sum of $81,814.41 from June 12, 2008 until May 24, 2010; and,

(c) reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $545,842 and costs in the amount of $23,697.

Copies mailed 5/24/10.

Kathy Podgers's video of Charles River White Geese goslings, 2010 edition

This shows us the beautiful goslings and the bare ground near the riverbank where the DCR and its allies have destroyed vegetation.

Many thanks to Kathy.

Praise for the Cambridge Chronicle

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Letter to the Editor, written 5/15/10.
2. Update, 5/21/10 and 5/22/10.


Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Letter to the Editor, blog entry written 5/15/10.

I have submitted the following Letter to the Editor:

************

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

The Chronicle is to be commended on its handling of the City Council’s shell game on the environment in the May 3 and 10 meetings.

On May 13, the Chronicle front paged the council’s vote to allow destruction of 16,293 square feet of, according to the City Manager, “extensive tree growth” so that it could be replaced with asphalt. The council seems to be keeping that May 3 vote as secret as possible. The council specifically voted to exempt this destruction from public meetings in which the tree destruction could be meaningfully communicated to the voters.

The Chronicle seemed to ignore the oh so lovely vote on May 10. In that vote, the council said nice things about some trees owned by Cambridge. The council wondered what kind of protections there are for this limited number of city owned trees.

Supporters of the council seem unaware of the vote for destruction of 16,293 square feet of “extensive tree growth.” The supporters brag about the next to meaningless vote inquiring as to what protections exist for some trees owned by Cambridge.

Other environmental destruction the council does not want to talk about includes: the pending destruction of the core part of the Alewife reservation, the apparently ongoing destruction of thousands of trees at Fresh Pond, the planned destruction of hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive, the dumping of poisons on Magazine Beach, the walling off of Magazine Beach from the Charles, the heartless animal abuse inflicted on the Charles River White Geese, and the ongoing destruction of all animals living on or visiting the first 10 miles of the Charles.

The destruction supported by all councilors present at the May 3 vote could be similar to destruction planned for an excellent grove of 104 trees on Memorial Drive. This excellent grove is quite thick. It is just reaching maturity at the western end of the Memorial Drive split, a little east of the Hyatt.

At absolute minimum, both the destruction voted for in the May 3 vote and the destruction pending on Memorial Drive are highway projects.

Shame, I had hoped there would be a change in the environmental approach of the Cambridge City Council.

I got conned by the machinations of the City Council’s representatives.

The Chronicle saw through the shell game. The Chronicle caught reality and the Chronicle publicized reality.

Good work.

Thank you.

2. Update, 5/21/10 and 5/22/10.

The above letter was printed in the Cambridge Chronicle’s May 21 edition along with a letter from a council supporter quite a bit separated from my letter. My letter was fourth of seven letters, very much in the middle of the editorial page. The support letter was last, on the continuing page, the op ed page.

The thought comes to mind that my letter is hardly the way to encourage nice sounding “action” by the Cambridge City Council. The trouble is that I have seen nice sounding “action” and seen nice sounding “action” and seen nice sounding “action.”

The non stop nice sounding “action” has been paralleled by a really vile reality.

This latest really vile reality was too very close to the nice sounding “action.” I have learned from ten years of really bad behavior out of the Cambridge City Council that it is difficult and actually downright silly to underestimate the Cambridge City Council.

Actually, when you include fake downzonings and other really destructive environmental harm, the record is much more than ten years.

We are dealing with a really rotten entity which stays in power by lying about itself.

Cambridge, MA, City Council Votes on Environmental Destruction in Watertown, MA

1. City Manager Letter.
2. City Manager Order 14A.
3. City Manager Order 14B
4. City Manager Order 14C.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

Following up on my analysis of May 13, 2010.

The following are the key documents, taken from the Minutes of the Cambridge City Council, May 3, 2010, City Manager Communication 14, http://www.cambridgema.gov/cityclerk/cmLetter.cfm?item_id=17021.

There were three roll call votes, reported on line as 8 - 0 - 1. Nobody voted in opposition. Councilor Davis was absent.

Note that the Cambridge City Council not only voted to destroy the environment, they voted to do so without the legal protections which they are supposed to be respecting.

In the following meeting, the City Council, after voting for OFF STREET environmental destruction in Watertown, voted to study procedures concerning destruction of street trees in Cambridge.

Another vote on May 3 was to attack raccoons living near the Squirrel Brand Building between Broadway and Harvard Street a block west of Windsor Street in the The Port neighborhood of Cambridge. This is a site in which Cambridge, as one of its first acts after conversion of a factory to affordable housing, was the destruction of a grove of 8 to 12 trees exceeding four stories in height. There was no opposition to attacking the local racoons.


1. City Manager Letter.

May 3, 2010

To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am submitting a request I received from the Department of Conservation and Recreation ("DCR") for a permanent easement of about 16,293 square feet (the "Easement") over a section of the City's water line in Watertown (the "Property") so that DCR may construct and maintain a bicycle/pedestrian path. In September of 2009, I granted a license to DCR to permit it to commence construction of the bicycle/pedestrian path over and within the proposed easement area. The bicycle/pedestrian path is part of a larger DCR/ Massachusetts Highway Department ("MHD") project to develop a bicycle/pedestrian corridor between the Charles River Reservation in Watertown and Fresh Pond Parkway in the City for recreational use by members of the public.

The Easement will ensure the long-term benefits of this portion of the bicycle/pedestrian path. Aside from the recreational benefit, the proposed benefits to the City will include DCR clearing the extensive tree growth in that area and paving it to protect the water line from further root damage and from future tree growth over the water line.

I recommend that the City Council approve the grant of the requested Easement at the Property to allow for a bicycle/pedestrian path over and within the proposed easement area and approve submission of a Home Rule Petition to the Legislature in order to obtain approval under Article 97 of the grant of the requested Easement. Assuming the Article 97 legislation is granted, I will also need authorization to grant the Easement, and therefore, I am also requesting the City Council to authorize disposition of the requested Easement and diminution of the full disposition of City-owned land process pursuant to Chapter 2.110 of the Cambridge Municipal Code.

Diminution of Process and Disposition of Easement under Chapter 2.110

First, the proposal must be considered by the Council pursuant to Chapter 2.110 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, which governs the disposition of city-owned property. I believe this disposition is properly subject to Section 2.110.010 (G) of that ordinance. Section G provides for the disposition of city-owned property where the full process of the ordinance would be unduly burdensome. Under this section, the City Manager may request of the City Council a diminution of the process in the ordinance; approval of this request requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council. I recommend such approval at this time.

Secondly, Section 2.110.010 also requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council to authorize the City Manager to grant the Easement. I also recommend that the City Council vote to authorize me to grant the Easement, and to execute and deliver the Easement in such form and substance as I determine is necessary or advisable.

I believe that the relatively minor incursions of the bicycle/pedestrian path into, onto, or over the water line qualify this proposed disposition for the diminished process permitted by Section 2.110.010(G). Limiting the scope of review for the requested disposition would be consistent with the expressed objective of the procedure required by the Chapter: to render "a fair analysis of how the greatest public benefit can be obtained from the City property in question."

I believe that the information furnished in this letter is sufficient to enable the City Council to make a determination on this matter. Carrying out a more detailed review would require significant amount of money and staff time. Since the procedure set forth in the Chapter would be costly and the area at issue is minimal, I believe this to be the type of disposition anticipated by subsection (G) which allows for a simpler process; and I therefore request that you approve a diminution of the full disposition review process and authorize me to grant the requested Easement.

Home Rule Petition

Given that the Property is land that was acquired for the purposes of developing, maintaining, and using the City's water system, the granting of this Easement requires Article 97 legislation. Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of Massachusetts provides in part that "[t]he people shall have the right to clean air and water . . . ; and the protection of the people in their right to the conservation, development and utilization of . . . water, air, and other natural resources is hereby declared to be a public purpose. . . . Lands and easements taken or acquired for such purposes shall not be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed of except by laws enacted by a two-thirds vote, taken by yeas and nays, of each branch of the general court." Accordingly, a Home Rule Petition must be submitted to the Legislature and must get a two-thirds vote of approval by the both the House and the Senate. I request that you approve the submission of the attached Home Rule Petition entitled, "AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO GRANT A PERMANENT EASEMENT ON AND OVER CERTAIN STRIPS OF LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE IN WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS" to the Legislature in order to seek its approval of the Easement pursuant to Article 97.

Conclusion

Consequently, I am asking for three votes from the City Council: (1) approval of the Home Rule Petition and authorization to seek said Article 97 legislation from both the House and the Senate, (2) diminution of the process, which requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council, and (3) disposition of the easement, which requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council.

I appreciate your consideration of this matter and welcome any questions you may have.

Very truly yours,



Robert W. Healy
City Manager

RWH/mec
Attachment(s)

2. City Manager Order 14A.

ORDERED: Pursuant to Section 2.110.010(g) of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the City Council hereby orders that the City Council shall utilize a diminished process for the disposition of a permanent easement on and over certain strips of land owned by the City of Cambridge in Watertown, Massachusetts to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by and through the Department of Conservation and Recreation, for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path as part of a Department of Conservation and Recreation and Massachusetts Department of Transportation project to develop a bicycle/pedestrian corridor between the Charles River Reservation in Watertown and Fresh Pond Parkway, as set forth in Robert W. Healy's May 3, 2010 letter to the City Council.


3. City Manager Order 14B

WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has received a request from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation ("DCR") for a permanent surface easement over a section of the City's water line in Watertown in order to construct a bicycle/pedestrian path (the "Easement"); and

WHEREAS: The permanent surface Easement sought by DCR will be used to connect large portions of a bicycle/pedestrian path on either side of the Easement area as part of a larger DCR/Massachusetts Department of Transportation project to develop a bicycle/pedestrian corridor between the Charles River Reservation in Watertown and Fresh Pond Parkway; and

WHEREAS: The permanent surface Easement sought by DCR will also benefit Cambridge in several ways. Not only will the Easement provide recreational benefits, but DCR will maintain the bicycle/pedestrian path so as to ensure the long-term benefits to the City of clearing the extensive tree growth in that area and paving it, which will protect the water line from future tree growth over it and from further root damage; and

WHEREAS: The combined total of the Easement area is approximately 16,293 square feet; and

WHEREAS: It is declared that the use of the surface area required for the Easement is not necessary for operation of the City's water line; and

WHEREAS: The City Council has determined that the granting of the permanent surface Easement for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path connecting large portions of a bicycle/pedestrian path on either side of it would not derogate from the public interest or the public purposes for the area now in question; and

WHEREAS: Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 15B, before executing the Easement to DCR for the above-stated purposes on the above-stated terms and conditions, the City of Cambridge must first notify the Town of Watertown that it intends to do so and ensure that the Town of Watertown does not wish to acquire the Easement for the above-stated purposes on the above-stated terms and conditions; now therefore be it

ORDERED: That the City Council declares that use of the surface area required for the Easement is not necessary for operation of the water line and therefore that the City Manager is authorized, after determining that the Town of Watertown will not exercise any rights it has to acquire the Easement area on the same terms and conditions and for the same purposes it is being offered to DCR, to grant on behalf of the City of Cambridge, pursuant to Section 2.110.010 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the permanent surface Easement to DCR for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path and to execute and deliver such Easement in such form and substance as the City Manager determines is necessary or advisable.


4. City Manager Order 14C.

May 3, 2010

1. WHEREAS: The City Council has determined that the granting of a permanent easement over a section of the City's water line in Watertown (the "Property") to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by and through the Department of Conservation and Recreation for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining, managing, operating, repairing, replacing, reconstructing, and/or removing a bicycle/pedestrian path (the "Easement") would not derogate from the public interest or the public purposes for the area now in question; and

WHEREAS: The Property is land that was acquired for the purposes of developing, maintaining, and using the City's water system, and therefore, the granting of this Easement requires legislation under Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of Massachusetts; and

WHEREAS: It is declared that the use of the surface area required for the Easement is not necessary for operation of the City's water line; and

WHEREAS: The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is forthwith to authorize the granting of a certain Easement in land owned by the City of Cambridge in Watertown, Massachusetts, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience; now therefore be it

ORDERED That a petition to the General Court, accompanied by a bill for a special law relating to the City of Cambridge attached and entitled "AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO GRANT A PERMANENT EASEMENT ON AND OVER CERTAIN STRIPS OF LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE IN WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS" to be filed with an attested copy of this order be, and hereby is, approved under Clause (1) of Section 8 of Article 2, as amended, of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the end that legislation be adopted precisely as follows, except for clerical or editorial changes of form only.

Day 393, Tree Destruction by Cambridge City Council.

1. Day 393 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.
2. I got Conned! Cambridge City Council votes for Tree Destruction.
A. Conned.
B. Destruction of trees praised by City Manager for Highway construction in Watertown voted by city council.
C. Vote to study street trees.
D. Seidel, Decker and Kelly on Raccoons.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Day 393 at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

On Thursday, May 13, 2010, I conducted the 393d or more visibility at the Destroyed Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese.

I was there before the rush hour so there was minimal pedestrian traffic. Vehicular traffic was incredible, a result of half of the lanes on the BU Bridge being closed.

2. I got Conned! Cambridge City Council votes for Tree Destruction.

A. Conned.

An operative for the Cambridge Machine heavily publicized the May 10, Cambridge City Council meeting, giving the impression that Councilor Cheung was protecting four street trees near Hoyt Field, which is about 2½ blocks from the Charles River.

I was minimally impressed when I saw the motion and realized that it was a study of whatever regulations exist with regard to street trees. I pointed out to her that big destruction by the City of Cambridge and its friends is being done to non street trees. A good cheerleader, she could not hear me and insisted this was a good start.

Kathy Podgers read the Chronicle report of Cambridge vote to destroy who knows how many trees in Watertown. She attempted to pass that report on as an addition to my report of a Yahoo report concerning the vote. The Chronicle report was on line, but did not make the hard copy as far as I have yet to be able to find.

The Chronicle front paged the vote to destroy all those trees in Watertown for construction a small vehicle highway by the state. The vote was 8 for, 0 opposed, and 1 something else. I am trying to get details on the something else.

The reality is that the street tree study is exactly the opposite of a good start since it follows a meaningful vote for tree destruction.

B. Destruction of trees praised by City Manager for Highway construction in Watertown voted by city council.

Kathy Podgers has wisely pointed out the Chronicle report on the meeting the previous Monday meeting which may be found at: http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1560851973/Cambridge-OKs-state-bike-path-plan. It was front paged.

The city manager is quoted as justifying giving the DCR an easement over Cambridge controlled property in Watertown. He minimizes the importance on the basis that there are a bunch of trees there which would be destroyed by the proposed small vehicle highway.

So the City Council knowingly voted to destroy the trees.

Kathy Podgers comments: “Apparently, one hand gives, while the other hand takes away... “ and she quotes the Chronicle quote of Healy:

*******

“The easement will ensure the long-term benefits of this portion of the bicycle/pedestrian path,” Healy wrote. “Aside from the recreational benefit, the proposed benefits to the city will include DCR clearing the extensive tree growth in that area and paving it to protect the water line from further root damage and from future tree growth over the water line.”

*******

A similar situation exists on Memorial Drive. A grove of about 104 excellent trees currently has reached a very beautiful maturity at the western end of the Memorial Drive split. This is a couple blocks east of the Hyatt.

One of the Machine’s beloved highways would decimate that grove. Those, for the most part, are not street trees. They are an excellent grove on the banks of the Charles River.

And the city council is emphasizing a STUDY of STREET trees while voting to destroy trees on Cambridge land in Watertown for another small vehicle highway. And somehow, even though they vote for destruction of city trees not on streets, the city councl cannot understand there are other trees that street trees under threat from government?

The exact language of the votes is reported above at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/cambridge-ma-city-council-votes-on.html.


C. Vote to study street trees.

Cambridge has a new City Councilor, Leland Cheung.

He submitted a motion to look into the procedure for destroying STREET trees in Cambridge. His motion has no concern for the destruction of publicly owned trees, no matter how excellent, which are not street trees.

We cannot say whether or not his study would get into the planned destruction of hundreds of trees on Memorial Drive before they are destroyed in the same manner as the Cambridge trees.

Clearly, it would not impact the trees in Watertown that the city council voted to destroy, would not impact the planned destruction of the Alewife reservation, the ongoing destruction of apparently thousands of trees at Fresh Pond, the dumping of poisons at Magazine Beach, the walling off of Magazine Beach, the ongoing and heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese or the ongoing destruction of all animals living or visiting the first ten miles of the Charles River.

From my point of view, I can see no possibility of the City of Cambridge becoming meaningfully responsible on environmental matters without firing the current City Manager and gutting The Cambridge Machine. You can add to that a similar problem with regard to Civil Rights, and you can keep on going. There are a lot of problems which simply stink, and the middle of the apparent stink has to be the core of the government.

Mr. Cheung’s motion passed without negative vote. I am checking to see if he is the person who voted something other than for or against the destruction of the Cambridge owned trees in Watertown which are being replaced with lovely paving.

D. Seidel, Decker and Kelly on Raccoons.

By contrast, there was an interesting interchange among three Machine members or beneficiaries, Seidel, Decker and Kelly.

Seidel and Decker are clearly destructive. Kelly tries to give the opposite impression.

This exchange follows on another vote last week in which a UNANIMOUS city council voted to attack raccoons in Squirrel Brand park.

The exchange among the three concerned raccoons. This exchange could be another con game from the three of them, Kelly, Seidel and Decker, trying to make Kelly look good. The three of them could consider Leland Cheung a threat, especially if Cheung, not a Machine product, turns out to be for real.

After apparently voting for this outrage, Kelley is trying to show himself as responsible on animal matters.

Seidel and Decker expressed concern that kids could get poisoned from eating the feces of raccoons.

Eight member of the city council are dumping poisons on Magazine Beach for kids to roll in and Seidel and Decker are trying to protect kids from being poisoned by eating excrement???

Nominal Action in Monteiro

Bob La Trémouille reports.

The case of Monteiro v. Cambridge has had numerous reports on this blog, and a link prominently posted to the key judge’s decision.

The case is in post judgment motions. Cambridge has filed notice of appeal and then admitted the notice of appeal was improperly filed.

My knowledge of the papers in front of the Court is limited to the titles of papers which have been listed on the public record in a Court document called “The Docket.”

Currently pending in front of the Court are:

1. The plaintiff’s motion to correct judgment because the judgement did not allow sufficient interest. I think this is the paper that was filed on November 4, 2009.

2. Cambridge’s motion for reconsideration of decision filed on November 3, 2009.

The parties have filed some papers since which amount to elaboration of these two motions.

On April 30, 2009, 11 volumes of transcript of testimony from various parts of the action were filed. This presumably is Cambridge’s accumulation of the record for an appeal.

Interfaith Youth Service Helps The Charles River White Geese

Marilyn has placed the following comment and materials on the Charles River White Geese Facebook page:

***********

Here's a video from the 3rd Annual Day of Interfaith Youth Service at the goose meadow, April 18, 2010. Thanks to all the DIYS volunteers and Alex Levering Kern, Executive Director, Cooperative Metropolitan Ministries, for their help to the White Geese and the geese's feathered friends here. They've made a big difference. Marilyn

Cambridge Machine offended by law obedience on the Charles

Bob La Trémouille reports:

An arm of The Cambridge Machine which calls itself some sort of streets coalition had a letter to the editor in the April 22, 2010 Cambridge Chronicle and in the on line edition. I have submitted the following in response.

Of possible interest is that the founder of this Streets Coalition is now officially employed by the City of Cambridge and that their office is located on the street front of an MIT dorm.


Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

The letter objecting to MassDOT’s River Street and Western Avenue bridge repairs suffers from major omissions.

First, MassDOT is obeying the law governing the Accelerated Bridge Repair Program by restricting its planning to the bridges it is repairing.

Secondly, the writers and their friends are fighting for massive environmental destruction on the Charles River. Their demands are not restricted to these bridges and are not just for supposed traffic benefits in this area.

MassDOT is a breath of fresh air. I like seeing laws obeyed and the environment respected.

In the BU Bridge repairs, Cambridge’s destructive machine was very happy to see the Department of Conservation and Recreation violating the same laws the writers now want violated.

DCR, helped by silence of consent, kept the BU Bridge repairs and its needless environment destruction and animal abuse as secret as possible. They did this by conducting “public meetings” in Boston and in Kendall Square.

The destruction and violations of law include needless drainage construction in the animal habitat east of the BU Bridge and a needless doubling of area destroyed there. They would not provide amelioration for animals affected.

The machine was happy to have that behavior kept secret when the state was working for environmental destruction. Now a responsible agency is behaving well. The machine is distressed.

The real demands are for a small vehicle highway in Cambridge duplicating the small vehicle highway on the Boston side. The demands are environmentally destructive and dangerous to public safety.

The machine does not want to know about signs closing the Boston side at night because of muggings and rapes.

The machine supports destruction of hundreds of trees and animal habitat between the BU and Longfellow Bridges as part of highway construction. An excellent and large grove just reaching maturity at the western end of the Memorial Drive split is directly threatened.

Essentially virgin animal habitat at the MWRA plant is directly threatened. The animal habitat under and east of the BU Bridge would be further destroyed. The environmental outrage at Magazine Beach would be made worse.

Miles of placid riverfront throughout Cambridge would be savaged.

These unstated matters are yet another example of the reality hidden by pretty much non stop con games in Cambridge. The machine keeps telling Cantabridgians to fight for fancy buildings and ignore the destruction of water, river, trees and animal habitat.

MassDOT is a pleasant relief.

Day 392, Poison Fed Grass looks even worse.

1. Day 392 at the Destroyed Nesting Area — Red Sox crowd.
2. Poison Fed Grass looks even worse.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Day 392 at the Destroyed Nesting Area — Red Sox crowd.

Rush hour was quite busy at the Destroyed Nesting Area. The Red Sox are in town and a lot of people were driving and walking to the game.

For the first time, I had a bicyclist grab a flier passing me.

People were interested and concerned.

2. Poison Fed Grass looks even worse.

I walked through the environmental outrage at the Magazine Beach athletic fields and looked more closely at the introduced poison fed grass.

The grass varies in quality from one location to another. Some locations are nearly bare.

The bare stuff is clearly inferior to the native, environmentally responsible grass which has not yet been destroyed, at the top of the hill to the west of the bizarre athletic fields.

Some parts look quite good, but are they better than the native grass which does not and did not need poisons to survive? And does it make any sense whatsoever to destroy all that healthy, viable grass to introduce sickly stuff that needs poisons to survive?

I had an extended discussion with a woman exercising a Lab on the hill. Her comments without prompting agreed with what normal people have been saying for the past thirteen years. The hill could use some work. Working on the playing fields was silly.

She was quite shocked to learn of the plans to destroy the parking on the hill. We are dealing with incompetents who have contempt both for the environment and for the people using the environment. These continuing projects both destroy the environment and destroy access for normal human beings to the Charles River. First and foremost, these incompetents should be fired. Instead, the Cambridge Machine runs around spouting flat out lies that the incompetents are worthy of our respect.

Day 391 at the Destroyed Nesting Area; Magazine Beach “Improvements” Essentially Non Existent

1. Day 391, Marathon Crowd.
2. First view of “Improvements” at Magazine Beach — Good Stuff Essentially Non Existent.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Day 391, Marathon Crowd.

On April 19, 2010, I once again set up at the far side of the BU Bridge because the east side is blocked of for the needlessly destructive BU Bridge repairs. This prevents leafleting next to the Goose Meadow. Similarly, leafleting of cars is now impossible, but the main target has always been pedestrians.

People, as usual, were very nice. Quite a few friendly beeps from the cars.

Clearly, a significant percentage of the folks walking were returning to their hotel from the Boston Marathon.

There were a lot of local residents, and they were interested.

The last person I leafleted discussed the various items of destruction with me and told me he would call Cambridge City Councilor Seidel. I informed him that I have posted on this blog Seidel’s commentary providing his definition of “environmentalism.” I informed him as well that Seidel voted for the destruction at Magazine Beach. This happened when he was on Cambridge’s version of a Conservation Commission.

2. First view of “Improvements” at Magazine Beach — Good Stuff Essentially Non Existent.

The normal reaction of people in the past when they were told of coming “improvements” at Magazine Beach has always been that work on Magazine Beach made no sense. There never was any need to improve it.

The fences are down. It is now possible to walk the construction zone.

The most overwhelming impression is that nothing of value has been done.

Then, when you look around, you realize that a lot has been done, and it is all either bad or could have been done without massive destruction.

Magazine Beach is now firmly walled off from the Charles River with a bizarre wall of introduced vegetation which hides the river from people using the playing fields, and starves the Charles River White Geese. The key bureaucrat has spouted “no intention to harm” for ten years, but explains that starving them, in his bizarre world, is not harming them, and he has publicly bragged of starving them.

The size of the playing fields has been significantly reduced by the massive drainage system to drain off the poisons needed by the introduced grass to keep from dying. The grass that was destroyed in this project survived for most of a century without poisons.

The playing fields have been rearranged, but you did not have to destroy to do that.

Then you realize that the area to the west of the construction zone has not been rebuilt.

It is impossible to distinguish between the two areas of grass: (1) the poison maintained stuff which was introduced in place of healthy environmentally responsible grass and (2) the healthy responsible stuff that has been there for the better part of a century and which is exactly the grass they destroyed.

The Bumpy Memorial Pond was introduced in the eastern end of the fields as part of the first destruction several years ago. It was intended to replace wetlands which were needlessly destroyed for the bizarre bushes. We always considered the Bumpy Memorial Pond bizarre because it was an artificially created pond feet from the Charles River with no connection.

The geese loved it. That may be the reason it has been destroyed. The pond has been filled in and it is now wetlands.

The wall of bizarre introduced bushes has been extended to wall off pretty much all of the Charles, vastly increasing blocking in the area near the Bumpy Pond and the small boat launch. That small boat launch is the only place clearly open for access from the Charles River. The massive increase of bushes is clearly designed to minimize the value of the poisoned grass to the Charles River White Geese.

Some people were playing on the softball fields. I do not know if they paid the $90 or so which is now required to use the fields even for pick up games.

Summary: reprehensible, stupid, a lot of destruction and less usable playing fields. Outrageous, but we are dealing with the City of Cambridge and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Cambridge Machine has no shame. The Cambridge Machine will be bragging.

Bridges: Urban Ring Phase 2, Charles River Bridges

Department of Transportation Secretary Jeff Mullan briefly spoke to the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Regional Transportation Advisory Council on Wednesday, April 14, 2010, following a presentation by Clinton Bench, who I believe is the Department's Deputy Executive Director of Planning.

In response to a question about Department of Conservation and Recreation's Charles River bridges transferred to DOT, Mullen cited work on all the bridges the DOT's Accelerated Bridge Program is responsible for repairing. He specifically mentioned those to the north that are in the ABP as part of the Urban Ring.

(As we were told when the public process for the Urban Ring 2 ceased: the Urban Ring Phase 2 is still alive.)

My follow-up question to the Secretary then was, how did DCR manage to evade ABP controls on the BU and Anderson bridges and expand the footprints? Mr. Mullan said he would look into it and get back to me.

Marilyn Wellons

***********

Bob La Trémouille responds:

This issue of footprint is major with regard ongoing environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse by DCR and Cambridge.

The DCR and Cambridge go out of their way to harm animal life on the Charles River by whatever means they have at their disposal.

The purpose is to kill off all animals living or visiting the first ten miles of the Charles River because they have a vision: they want a dead world on the Charles River, as they and their predecessors have worked to create a dead world on our planet.

The footprint at the BU Bridge (I am not familiar with the Anderson Bridge problem) was illegally expanded as part of the attacks on the Charles River White Geese.

The two have been heartlessly destroying the Charles River White Geese by destroying their habitat piece by piece.

The DCR is illegally installing a drainage system for the BU Bridge in the tiny meadow which is all that is undestroyed to the Charles River White Geese of their habitat.

Destroy, destroy, destroy, a little here, a little there, a lot of lying and false claims of sainthood, . . .

By contrast, a responsible entity, MassDOT is rebuilding drainage on the Western Avenue and River Street Bridges within the footprint of those bridges. And that is the requirement of the program under which they are working.

This destruction is a major part of the reason DCR and the Cambridge pols kept the meetings on BU Bridge planning as secret as they could from affected Cambridge residents.

This deliberate secrecy was the reason for the con games pulled by the Cambridge pols on the River Street and Western Avenue Bridge. They lied to the public with claims of "concern" by demanding that the responsible projects have public presentations in Cambridge while being very happy to keep the irresponsible BU Bridge project secret from Cambridge.

Response to support for state and Cambridge Charles River planners

Bob La Trémouille reports:

Last Thursday, March 25, 2010, The Cambridge Chronicle printed an op ed from the head of an entity called the “Charles River Conservancy” praising planners for their magnificent achievements on the Charles River. It was earlier published on line.

I submitted the following response. It was published on line today, March 31, 2010 and published in hard copy in the edition of April 1, 2010. Paragraphing was edited.

Letter: Response to support for state and Cambridge Charles River planners

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I disagree with the Charles River Conservancy’s praise for state and Cambridge Charles River “planning”.

The omissions were more important than what was said.

The CRC is active in ongoing destruction of the environment of the Charles River. It has widely poisoned the eggs of migratory waterfowl. It twice yearly destroys native protective vegetation on the banks of the Charles River.

I have seen members of the Boston Conservation Commission shocked at its destruction.

One key CRC member repeatedly used a chain saw on valuable riverfront trees until the Boston Conservation Commission stopped him.

The writer supports environmental destructiveness on the Charles River.

She gushes at plans to destroy hundreds of healthy trees and animal habitat between the BU and Longfellow Bridges.

She conducted a “swim in” bragging about the destruction at Magazine Beach. She supported destroying the Magazine Beach wetlands and installing a wall of introduced bushes which block access between the river and Magazine Beach. She supports the ongoing dumping of poisons at Magazine Beach. The poisons keep alive sickly grass introduced after the destruction of healthy, native grass which survived the better part of a century. She is on the side of the ongoing, heartless animal abuse being inflicted on the beautiful, valuable Charles River White Geese.

She supports the construction of a small vehicle highway on the Cambridge side of the Charles which would duplicate an existing one on the Boston side. She has no problem with the massive environmental destruction of such a highway. The signs on the Boston side closing their version of that highway at night because of muggings and rapes do not deter her support.

She had no problems with the BU Bridge repair meetings being held in Boston and Kendall Square to keep the needless environmental damage and animal abuse in Cambridge secret from affected Cantabridgians.

She inflicts light pollution at the base of Charles River bridges at night.

She praises Cambridge and state “planners”. She praises 19th Century planners.

I support the environment. I oppose the planned destruction of all animal life visiting or living on the first ten miles of the Charles. I think these “planners” should be fired because of their flat out contempt for the natural environment which they are so determined to destroy.

I do not think Cambridge and the state should once again be proving the folly of environmental destruction which is destroying our world.

Con Game on the Cambridge Common

1. Introductory.
A. Invitation.
B. Reality.
2. The Cambridge Common, Sunday, March 28, 2009.
A. General.
B. Close Encounter with a Destructive Pol.

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introductory.

A. Invitation.

An individual with a record of fake environmental initiatives as part of The Cambridge Machine put out the following invitation:

******

Join the Leadership Campaign’s
Rally & Sleep-Out
Sunday, March 28th
Cambridge Common, Cambridge, MA

March to the State House
Call for 100% Clean Electricity in Massachusetts by 2020!
Monday morning, March 29th

All are invited to join any or all portions of this event

******

B. Reality.

The Cambridge Machine does a decidedly spectacular job using the standard techniques of Company Union organizations.

Company unions are created by management to give the impression of being unions while, in reality, suppressing the union movement.

They suppress the union movement by creating organizations that look like unions, getting people to join, and then using their fake union to suppress real union activity and, if possible, achieving anti-union goals.

When it comes to the environment in Cambridge, The Cambridge Machine aggressively creates these fake groups. They run around loudly protecting everything and everything EXCEPT the environment that The Cambridge Machine is destroying.

The destruction is aimed at destruction of the Charles River, destruction of Fresh Pond, destruction of Alewife, destruction of large numbers of trees, heartless animal abuse, and a lot of other really bad stuff.

But they love to talk about fancy buildings.

Essentially, they are keeping “trouble makers” contained and aiming followers away from anything and everything that could respond to the environmental destruction being achieved by The Cambridge Machine.

To the extent that well meaning individuals can be conned into assisting environmental destroyers at the State House or on the Cambridge City Council (eight proven, one too soon to tell), that much the better from their point of view.

The announcement of this gathering was the first I had heard of “The Leadership Campaign.” Typical, lovely name. The Cambridge Machine does a great job on lovely names.

2. The Cambridge Common, Sunday, March 28, 2009.

A. General.

The key time was 4 pm, a rally with speakers.

I showed up at about 3:40 pm and got a spot with an excellent view.

There were perhaps 15 expensive looking tents well aligned in rows on the Cambridge Common near Garden Street and Mass. Ave. There are three Common paths converging at that intersection. The tents and their occupants were located between the two paths nearest Garden Street.

The occupants were chit chatting among the tents.

I leafleted from 3:45 pm to 4:05 pm at the convergence of the two paths. I stopped at 4:05 pm because there was not enough action to justify continuing.

I would be happy to provide a copy of the flier. Please email at boblat@yahoo.com. This was the standard flier of Friends of the White Geese. One side addresses the destruction targeted at the Charles River; the other side addresses the ongoing destruction of the environment throughout Cambridge.

A number of people talked with me. The area most definitely was not quiet. It was just that by about 4:05 pm, it just did not seem to make sense to stay.

To the extent anybody I encountered asked particulars, I went into details as to my attempts to protect the Charles River and the City of Cambridge from The Cambridge Pols. I described the standard con from the Cambridge Machine.

The “demonstration” on the Cambridge Common most definitely looked like a part of the standard con. I went into details as to the techniques and about the ongoing environmental destruction.

As I left, a man came out of the group of tent dwellers carrying one of my leaflets. He strongly thanked me for the warning.

B. Close Encounter with a Destructive Pol.

As I left, I also noticed, illegally parked on Garden Street near Mass. Ave., Cambridge City Councilor (and most recent prior Mayor) Denise Simmons.

Denise Simmons is running for State Senate. She is clearly an environmental destroyer, and belligerently a heartless animal abuser on the Charles River.

I may have missed someone but I saw no other major political types.

That could explain who was behind this con game.

Passing of Daejanna Wormwood-Malone

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I was informed this morning, March 25, that Daejanna Wormwood-Malone passed yesterday of cardiac arrest. One of her neighbors called.

Daejanna was a good friend of the Charles River White Geese, especially during the early years of this millennium, right after Cambridge and the state started their attacks.

She was a member of our Core Group.

She helped feed them during difficult times and, as I recall, she was quite helpful to Marilyn after an attack on the Charles River White Geese.

Daejanna waxed poetic about her relationship with “Lothario,” a gander who would talk with her when she visited the Destroyed Nesting Area.

Daejanna would sit at the hill which is now part of the needless destruction and chat with Lothario for hours.

It developed that Lothario was the mate of a Toulouse Goose who, with her sister, had been left at the goose meadow in fall 2000. She would stay with her mate during nesting season and with her sister during off season. Finally, she and her mate created a brood. She stayed with her family from then on, as did Lothario. Daejanna lost her friend.

Daejanna was a good person. I will miss her.


CAVEAT: I checked the report by calling my phone number for Daejanna. I had a bad connection, but I spoke with a male voice who kept asking me questions. I could not get through to him, but that was clearly different from what I would expect.

Cambridgeport going from 3 to zero Grammar Schools to justify environmental destruction at Magazine Beach?

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. Introductory.
2. Closing of the Webster School / Graham and Parks School / closed school on Upton Street.
3. Cambridgeport School.
4. Morse School under attack? — The Con.
5. Morse School under attack? — The, as usual, nasty reality.
6. Aerial View.


1. Introductory.

Things are starting to fall into place in Cambridgeport and it is looking like very nasty treatment of the neighborhood.

What it looks like is that the neighborhood, which formerly had three grammar schools may be slated to have none, and the latest move could be a con game to justify destroying the environment at Magazine Beach.

I have not paid full attention to the games played with the schools, and I welcome correction.

2. Closing of the Webster School / Graham and Parks School / closed school on Upton Street.

A few years back, using a really cynical con game, the Graham and Parks School, formerly the Webster School, on Upton Street was closed. The Machine closed the school but claimed they “did not close the school.” This bizarre claim was accomplished by moving the name to a school adjacent to a major quadrangle of the former Radcliffe College in West Cambridge.

So Graham and Parks School, formerly Webster School, on Upton Street was taken from the Cambridgeport neighborhood, but the city claims it is still on the books, always neglecting to mention that the supposedly continued school is now several miles away in a totally different part of the city on the far side of Harvard Square, one of the two major dividing points of the city.

3. Cambridgeport School.

I think that this is the name that was applied to the former Blessed Sacrament School located between Magazine and Pearl Streets facing Dana Park when that school was reused.

Blessed Sacrament School was closed as part of the Catholic Archdiocese reorganization. It was located about three blocks from the Webster School / Graham and Parks School / closed school on Upton Street.

The facility was taken over and run under the name Cambridgeport School.

It could have been part of the public school system, just an experimental part.

As part of the conversion of the school to housing, the private / experimental school itself, with its name was moved to a city owned and now closed school on Elm Street between Broadway and Cambridge Street on the opposite side of Central Square. This is a moving of perhaps eight blocks.

I see its website seeming to describe it as part of the Cambridge Public School system.

A cynical aspect of the problem is emphasized by the fact that this school is in the historical Cambridgeport neighborhood in a portion of the historical Cambridgeport neighorhood which is no longer recognize by the city as part of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is formally given a number and informally known by The Machine as the Wellington-Harrington neighborhood.

The Machine would not dream of using the name assigned to the area by the long term residents. This name is “The Port” as opposed to “The Coast” where the Webster School / Graham and Parks School / closed school on Upton Street is located.

And another Cambridgeport school was “not closed.” The name of another school was changed to the name of the school in the Cambridgeport neighborhood.

4. Morse School under attack? — The Con.

The city / The Machine has been talking about reorganizing to create a Middle School, 6, 7 and 8 grades, I think, with school closing as part of the proposal deliberately vague.

The Machine has been apparently neutral while mentioning the proposal, always discouraging talk of where it would go.

I have been on a very nasty receiving end of a communication from a woman who could be a very typical victim of a con. The scam artists can get people really involved to the extent that it becomes offensive to the victim to realize that the victim has been conned.

The sales pitch is: isn’t this a lovely idea.

The sales pitch is: it would be unreasonable to create a new school for this purpose.

The sales pitch is: how dare you consider what school we would close for this lovely idea.

So the mark does not want to lose their only remaining of three neighborhood schools and gets sold on the concept while being told it is unfair to consider the fact that the mark is stabbing the mark in the back.

This particular person does not want to lose the Morse School, the last remaining neighborhood school of three schools in Cambridgeport.

But the person was quite horrified at the possible use of the Webster School / the Graham and Parks School / the closed school on Upton Street for the purpose, and apparently the official talk about possible facilities does not even mention the Webster School / the Graham and Parks School / the closed school on Upton Street.

5. Morse School under attack? — The, as usual, nasty reality.

Cambridge has a truly outrageous situation on the Charles River at Magazine Beach.

Cambridge a very massive machine in place which is proven to do really bad things. This is The Machine.

The Morse School is within sight of Magazine Beach. Magazine Beach is on the south side of Memorial Drive. The Morse School is on the north side of Memorial Drive.

They are connected by an overpass above Memorial Drive which, surprise, surprise, is being rebuilt by the state.

Could the creation of a middle school in place of the Morse School be a game to justify the irresponsible destruction at Magazine Beach? Could Cambridgeport be going from three grammar schools to none as part of the irresponsible destruction at Magazine Beach?

The entire situation is sufficiently rotten to be exactly in character with the City of Cambridge and The Cambridge Machine.

6. Aerial View.














Above is an aerial view, probably from the state, of Cambridgeport and the Charles River.

The bridge in the bottom middle is the BU Bridge. The green area with two patches of brown (one now destroyed) is Magazine Beach. Directly north of Magazine Beach is Memorial Drive. Then you see the Morse School.

MassDOT Meeting, March 9, on the River St. and Western Ave. Bridges, Morse School, Cambridge

1. Bob La Trémouille reports.
2. Marilyn Wellons reports:
Part I.

1. Bob La Trémouille reports.

I had to leave fairly early during the public comments.

MassDOT presented their plans to a meeting at the Morse School near Magazine Beach in Cambridge.

The presentation was not changed from that made to the Allston meeting.

The attendance was perhaps double that in the Allston meeting. The Allston meeting filled that conference room. The Morse School Cafeteria is quite a bit larger than the conference room in the Honan Allston Library.

Representatives Walz and Wolf took credit for getting MassDOT to make a presentation in Cambridge.

I spoke on a number of issues.

I commented that the River Street / Western Avenue project is a responsible project on the state side. By contrast, the DCR’s BU Bridge project is very much environmentally destructive. Silence on the meetings on the BU Bridge project being conducted in Boston and Kendall Square allowed the DCR to keep that environmental destruction secret from the Cambridge residents most affected.

I commented that plans being proposed by friends of the State Reps for a small vehicle highway under the bridges with Memorial Drive access would be environmentally destructive and would duplicate an existing small vehicle highway on the Boston side. That small vehicle highway is a haven for muggers and rapists, and has signs warning people not to use it at night.

I objected to related plans for lighting at night at the water level. These would be historically destructive, environmentally destructive and harmful to animals feeding.

My initial comments were on the highway markings on the River Street Bridge. I was the second member of the public to speak. I followed a resident at 808 Memorial Drive, at the Cambridge end of the bridge, who objected that existing signage is dangerous. I followed up repeating my Allston comments, that people are making left turns from the middle lane onto Memorial Drive because signage at the Boston end violates signage manual requirements that one way streets be marked to tell people on one way streets that they are on one way streets. People are driving in the middle lane and turning left off it because they think they are on two way streets.

Councilor Davis left after I spoke without speaking. She gave me a dirty look, perhaps she also wanted to take credit for the Cambridge meeting.

2. Marilyn Wellons reports:

Part I.

In addition to the elected officials Bob has named, City Councillors Seidel and Cheung arrived after he left.

Councillor Wolf led off the question and answer period. She asked about improvements for pedestrians and cyclists on both sides of the river around the bridges. She also asked whether DOT work would affect vegetation there.

DOT pointed out that the Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) under which the work is funded defines the scope of the work as the footprint of the bridge. (The footprint is the dimensions of the existing structure.) Possible changes to the "multipurpose path" beyond the bridges themselves and their intersections are therefore limited. As for trees, DOT said they aim for as little destruction as possible, but need staging areas. They identify trees that must be removed during design of the repairs.

In response to this question and others about the "multipurpose path," in particular about tunnels for it through the bridges' abutments that had been proposed at the Allston meeting, DOT said they were studying the question. Whether tunnels prove to be feasible or not in the work now, they would aim at a design that would not foreclose that option in the future.

Many people cited safety problems for peds, bikes, and motor vehicles at the complicated intersections on both ends of the two bridges, and especially for River Street, where traffic from Soldiers Field Road and the Turnpike continues at high speed. And on Western Avenue, traffic backs up to Central Square and along Putnam Avenue.

Part II to follow.

The Charles River, East Cambridge, Mid-Cambridge, “Climate Change” and The Cambridge Machine

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The following letter from me was printed in the March 12, 2010 edition of the Cambridge Chronicle. Initial capitalization was removed from “The Machine.”

Editor
Cambridge Chronicle

I read with interest your report about a “neighborhood group’s” planning for Lechmere Station, especially in context of the city wide con game concerning climate control.

The Lechmere group has key people involved in the city wide con game which, in turn, looks like a collection of related groups with very much a common pattern. The pattern is lovely words with the opposite behavior in reality because of secret omissions or secret fine print.

Some people involved in the Lechmere initiative, when pushed, express shock about the plans of a state agency for Lechmere Station. They are shocked that the state agency wants to put in a park in the place of Lechmere Station.

So we hear these lovely words about a plaza with minimal comment of a large building.

Their plans are not for a plaza with large construction. Their proposal is for large construction with a plaza.

In place of a very large park with trees. In place of a very large park with grass.

And key people are involved in the city wide con game.

The climate control congress brags of lovely buildings.

Somehow the group does not mention needless and massive city and state destruction of excellent trees and animal habitat in many parts of Cambridge. Somehow not mentioned are poisons being dumped on the banks of the Charles to keep alive sickly grass replacing healthy grass which survived the better part of a century. Somehow not mentioned is a bizarre wall of introduced bushes walling off Magazine Beach and its food from the Charles and its native animals. Somehow not mentioned is heartless animal abuse.

A related letter spouted pious about the climate control congress and neglected to mention the writer’s environmental achievements. The writer brags about the grassy Lorentz Park at Ellery and Broadway. The writer never mentions the 20 to 30 hundred year old trees he and the city destroyed in the process.

These related entities have commonly gotten together with zoning “improvements” in which the fine print too often puts the lie to lovely claims.

Cambridge has an organized group doing a lot of harm to the environment in Cambridge. This Cambridge Machine fits a very distressing pattern.

I think the related outrages and con games are the climate control problem in Cambridge.

I think the repeated con games are just the hypocritical way The Machine hides reality from a concerned electorate.

River Street Bridge/Western Avenue Bridge Project: Presentation in Cambridge Coming

Bob La Trémouille reports:

MassDOT (Massachusetts Department of Transportation ) has announced a meeting in the Morse School near the BU Bridge in Cambridge on March 9, 2010, at 6:30 pm concerning the River Street and Western Avenue project.é

The state project is innocent.

The problems in the River Street / Western Avenue Bridge project stem from the vultures floating around.

The developer front which calls itself the Charles River Conservancy is fighting to continue its light pollution at the river level. Obviously, the environment has no rights. This developer lobby is aggressively in support of destroying whatever part of nature they can.

There is also a highway lobby fighting for massive environmental destruction to build a road for small vehicles, destroying whatever is in the way. This lobby, as usual, clearly has major connections in The Cambridge Machine.

False friend, Representative Walz, is taking credit for meetings being held in Cambridge. She does not to hear about why she supported maximum secrecy in the meetings on the BU Bridge project.

She and Davis yell about Boston meetings on the Western Avenue and River Street Bridges. She and Davis were deafeningly silent about the Boston/Kendall Square ONLY meetings on the BU Bridge.

How dare anybody hear about heartless animal abuse!!!!

How dare anybody hear about massive and needless environmental destruction.

Walz wants her constituents to hear about the state doing no damage, and even better, you might get talked into helping out her buddies destroying the environment. So the River/Western meeting are held in Cambridge. The BU Bridge meetings were kept as secret as possible.

And she does not want to talk about the hundreds of trees and animal habitat slated for destruction between the BU Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge.

A similar stunt was pulled at the Annual Meeting last week of the front organization of The Cambridge Machine which calls itself the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association.

The only thing controversial in that meeting was the report of the City Manager’s people on the Charles River. So it was moved to the end of the agenda and public comment was prevented the carefully orchestrated “lack of time.”

The Machine is extremely destructive.

The Machine’s destructiveness is well demonstrated by The Machine’s pretty much nonstop lying that The Machine is not destructive.

The civil rights judge in the Monteiro case is another situation which The Machine keeps as secret as possible. That judge is the one who called Cambridge “reprehensible” for destroying the life of a black woman in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The Machine is stretching out that poor woman’s misery as much as possible, as well in spite of a clear, excellent decision by the judge.

That is “the way things are done in Cambridge.”